W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2021

[MINUTES] W3C CCG Verifiable Credentials API Call - 2021-11-16

From: CCG Minutes Bot <ccgminutes@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:44:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <61943439.1c69fb81.1120c.36b9@mx.google.com>
Thanks to Markus Sabadello and Manu Sporny for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Verifiable Credentials API telecon are now available:


Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).

Verifiable Credentials API Telecon Minutes for 2021-11-16

  1. Relevant Community Updates
  2. Issue Processing
  3. Pull Request Review
  Manu Sporny
  Markus Sabadello and Manu Sporny
  Charles E. Lehner, Manu Sporny, Markus Sabadello, TallTed // Ted 
  Thibodeau (he/him) (OpenLinkSw.com), Dmitri Zagidulin, Adrian 
  Gropper, David Chadwick, Joe Andrieu, Brent Zundel, Eric Schuh, 
  Phil L (P1), Mike Varley, Juan Caballero, Brian Richter, Orie 
  Steele, Marty Reed, Ted Thibodeau

Markus Sabadello is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  Welcome to VC API call, thanks to the scribe, 
  agenda is here.
Manu Sporny:  We'll be doing issue processing, currently 87 open 
Manu Sporny:  Any updates or changes to the agenda?
Manu Sporny:  Introductions, anyone new to the call?
Manu Sporny:  Anyone would like to re-introduce?

Topic: Relevant Community Updates

Manu Sporny:  Does anyone have relevant community updates?
Manu Sporny:  One thing worth mentioning.. I'm expecting that the 
  SVIP will have an interop plugfest, people may want to set new 
  interop targets. There may be discussion around that.
Manu Sporny:  Any other plugfests that will use the VC API?
Manu Sporny:  Maybe from juancaballero ?
Manu Sporny:  I know that Orie has said that he would like us to 
  focus on did:key for use in VC API.
Manu Sporny:  Digital Bazaar is interested in 
  Ed25519Signature2020, also refresh list functionality for next 
Charles E. Lehner:  I don't think "it" adds new requirements, but 
  gets implementers to interop.
Manu Sporny:  What is "it" ?
Charles E. Lehner:  The interop in the test suite. There are 
  different implementations being tested there.
Dmitri Zagidulin:  One proposed requirement in one issue is for 
  the VC API to support a use case of interactive issuer/verifier 
Dmitri Zagidulin: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/245
Manu Sporny:  It's a really well written issue, we should add 
  this as an agenda item.
Dmitri Zagidulin:  Sounds great
Manu Sporny:  Any other community related things before we move 

Topic: Issue Processing

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/71
<phil_l_(p1)> @Dimitri, this is of equal importance and value for 
  the verifier sent a batch of credentials in a presentation
Manu Sporny:  Markus and Orie have commented. Joe_Andrieu do you 
  have thoughts on this?
<dmitriz> @Phil_L -- agreed
Joe Andrieu:  This came up as a gap in the diagrams. The ability 
  of a holder storage to be accessed by people other than a holder, 
  this is up for conversation.
Joe Andrieu:  I think it's a reasonable request
<orie> there are currently no defined API for Issuer->Holder 
  flows in this api.
Adrian Gropper:  This falls in the category of what is the scope 
  of VC API for an issuer. If we start with this being in scope, 
  then it's clear that the request can indicate whatever. But I'm 
  not clear how we are scoping the Issuer part of the API. I think 
  of Issuer to be separate from Holder and Verifier.
Adrian Gropper:  Is the request phase in scope for the VC API.
Manu Sporny:  Yes it is, because we defined it in a flow
Adrian Gropper:  Then how is this special?
Joe Andrieu:  The conceptual challenge with this topic is we have 
  currently envisioned most of these endpoints to be 
  request-response, so we don't have good support for interactive 
Joe Andrieu:  If we want to initiate flows and then have 
  callbacks, then that callback should be in scope. That would 
  allow an asynchronous flow.
<orie> here is an example of issuer to holder flows using 
<orie> this recently got added to the waci-pex scope.
Manu Sporny:  Anyone wants to push this issue forward?
<dmitriz> Orie -- oh interesting, thanks. (re the waci issuance 
Mike Varley:  If there's an issuer e.g. of a background check, 
  this can take 24h to process. The human interaction with the 
  issuer takes place, then there is a 24h period where the 
  credential isn't available, then when the background check is 
  complete you want to push it to the wallet.
Mike Varley:  I think this can be solved in other ways, maybe 
  outside of this API.
<juancaballero> steep
<orie> DIDComm is the solution! :)
Mike Varley:  I work with Troy. I'm willing to let this issue sit 
  until someone comes with a concrete use case that they want to 
  see implemented. There may be better ways of implementing this 
  use case that don't impact this API.
Mike Varley:  E.g. the holder gets an out-of-band notification.
Mike Varley:  I think it's okay for this issue to sit for now 
  until we figure out if this is needed.
Manu Sporny:  Suggestion that someone needs to come up with a 
  concrete use case.
Adrian Gropper:  Do we have a tag for "authorization"? I suggest 
  this issue be tagged with it.
Adrian Gropper:  I might be willing to be assigned this, because 
  I think it is in part an authorization issue, and I'm available 
  to try move all authorization issues forward.
Manu Sporny:  Agree this is related to authorization, we have 
  that tag, just added it to the issue.
Manu Sporny:  (Changing Github settings to add agropper to the 
  vc-api repo, so the issue can be assigned to him)
Adrian Gropper:  I would be willing to work with other people on 
  the previous issue 245 as well.
<dmitriz> I'd also be willing to be assigned issue 245 :)
Manu Sporny:  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/79
Manu Sporny:  This is done, right?
<dmitriz> (I don't think 245 is quite authorization related; 
  orthogonal to authorization)
Orie Steele:  Is the test suite published correctly? Is the NPM 
  package published?
<juancaballero> NO COMMENT
Orie Steele:  CCG should not manage NPM packages
Joe Andrieu: +1
Manu Sporny:  Agree with Orie, CCG should not publish NPM 
  packages. Any objections to this position?
Manu Sporny:  Should we take it down from NPM?
<orie> btw the test suite is still rendering properly...
Orie Steele: 
Joe Andrieu:  Should the "w3c-ccg" name be held so it doesn't get 
  used by others?
Manu Sporny:  Anyone disagree with this statement?
<orie> but there is not "index.html" at root level
Orie Steele: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-api-test-suite
Manu Sporny:  Next step is for CCG chairs to communicate this 
  more broadly and ask for CCG consensus.
Juan Caballero:  Orie mentioned in chat there is no index.html 
  for the root.
<orie> raise an issue.
Manu Sporny:  Marked this as pending close.
Manu Sporny: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-api-test-suite
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/88
Manu Sporny:  Orie, some background on this?
Orie Steele:  We talked about what verifying a VC would mean. VP 
  has certain requirements, but is loose in some ways. You can have 
  a VP that has multiple VCs but doesn't itself have a proof. This 
  was resolved in another PR.
Orie Steele:  I propose we close this issue since this has been 
  addressed in the test suite.
Orie Steele:  This was resolved in test suite PR 113
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/80
Orie Steele:  There are fixtures in the test suite repo which 
  make verifying difficult. This is one of them.
Manu Sporny:  I will move it to vc-api-test-suite
Orie Steele:  Having it in a separate repo means we need to groom 
  the issues here.
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/81
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/82
Manu Sporny:  I will transfer these as well to vc-api-test-suite
Orie Steele:  Yep makes sense
Manu Sporny: 
Manu Sporny:  (Technical difficulties with moving issues)
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/41
Manu Sporny:  Mike_Varley any comment on this one?
Manu Sporny is scribing.
<juancaballero> sorry technical difficulties here too
Markus Sabadello:  This has to do with the earlier versions of 
  the API where the API was also composing credentials, this 
  particular issue is about scenario where API reaches out to 
  datastore to get claim values.
<orie>	in a world where issuer = (template, args) => Promise<vc>
Markus Sabadello:  Instead of client composing credential, client 
  only calls API w/ part of the information.
Markus Sabadello is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  Overtaken by events? We don't do this anymore?
Manu Sporny:  We made the design decision that you call the API 
  after you get all the information
Mike Varley:  I think we made this out of scope.
Manu Sporny:  Closed this issue.
Manu Sporny:  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/87
Orie Steele:  It's somehow related to templates. Ability to issue 
  a batch of thousands of credentials.
Orie Steele:  Community opinion seems to be to not support 
  batches and call API separately for each credential.
Orie Steele:  If we want to support this, many additional issues 
  may come up (e.g. around revocation). Batching is complicated.
Markus Sabadello:  The idea that there would be a template is 
  similar to previous issue -- some sort of composing happens 
  inside of implementations. This is out of scope for this reason, 
  we don't want to do composing as well as reasons that Orie 
  mentioned. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny:  Any objections to closing?
Manu Sporny:  Closing that one
Markus Sabadello:  I know we want to process issues in this 
  order, can we do #51? It's a duplicate? [scribe assist by Manu 
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/51
Manu Sporny:  Posting a comment that the group decided batching 
  is out of scope for this version of the API.
Manu Sporny:  Any objections to closing?
Manu Sporny:  Closed that issue.
Ted Thibodeau:  Do we have a label "defer to next version"? 
  Batching is not an anti-pattern by itself. It's fine to not have 
  it in this version, but maybe we should pick it up in future 
Manu Sporny:  I think if it's important enough for people, new 
  issues will be opened.
Manu Sporny:  I tried to be careful with saying "out of scope for 
  this version".
<dmitriz> what if.. we tag it, but ALSO close it?
Manu Sporny:  Do you want us to do something else?
Ted Thibodeau:  I would prefer to have a tag so it's easy to 
Manu Sporny:  I'm happy if people want to revisit this in a 
  future version.
<dmitriz> yessssss +1, more memes.
Orie Steele:  We should have more memes in the descriptoin.
Manu Sporny:  Anyone else thinks we should re-open the batching 
  topic and label it for v2.
Ted Thibodeau:  It could remain closed but still have the label.
Manu Sporny:  Okay
Manu Sporny:  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/100
Manu Sporny:  Also applying the same "v2" label and closing.
Manu Sporny:  If there are no objections, I want to take a look 
  at the architectural overview PR.
Manu Sporny:  Any objections?

Topic: Pull Request Review

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/pull/237
Manu Sporny:  Joe put together diagrams of the ecosystem, we 
  discussed this quite a bit, there seemed to be buy-in. agropper 
  objected and asked for explanatory text. You authored that text.
Manu Sporny:  Some people pushed back, saying this is about the 
  diagram, not about the introduction. Dmitri seemed to have some 
  concerns, Joe responded.
Manu Sporny:  Agropper you could agree that we create a new issue 
  and new PR to talk about the introductory text and consider this 
  orthogonal to the diagram; or you assert that you want to discuss 
  the text as part of the PR and it has to go in together with the 
Adrian Gropper:  IIRC, you asked me not to reference the diagram 
  specifically. I then chose to move up to the introduction to 
  further my goal. I don't have a strong feel. I think the issue of 
  the introduction needs to be taken up, it's a scoping issue for 
  everything that follows. I don't particularly care if we do it as 
  part of this PR, or as an issue.
<orie> seperate PRs are preferred.
Manu Sporny:  How about we open a new issue that says we need to 
  update the introduction to talk about the things you mention. 
  agropper I would like you to copy your text into a new issue 
  about updating the introduction to speak about delegation. You 
  could raise this as a PR.
Manu Sporny:  Separate this out from the diagram, this could 
  remove the objection to merge the diagram, then we look at your 
  PR. Does that work for you?
Adrian Gropper:  Yes
Manu Sporny:  (Creating new issue 252 with agropper 's text)
Manu Sporny:  PR 237 should now be unblocked. dmitriz do you have 
Joe Andrieu:  Just wanted to see if my response addresses dmitriz 
  's concerns
Dmitri Zagidulin:  I think my main ask is it would be great to 
  have a key to the shapes of the diagrams, to tell what the ovals, 
  rectangles, etc. mean.
Manu Sporny:  I will re-base and merge
Manu Sporny:  Let's talk about next week. It's Thanksgiving in 
  the US, many meetings are canceled, I propose we do the same. We 
  can review PRs in the week after that.
Manu Sporny:  Will this cause problems for cel or 
  markus_sabadello ?
Charles E. Lehner:  That's okay
Markus Sabadello:  For me too
Orie Steele: +1 To no meetings in december
Manu Sporny:  Therefore no meeting next week, we will meet again 
  after Thanksgiving, I suggest the we then have no meetings in 
  December to give people a break.
Manu Sporny:  Any last comments?
<tallted> so next call is Jan 5 ?
<mike_varley> thanks all!
Manu Sporny:  Thanks to the scribe, thank you everyone, we were 
  super productive. Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate it. 
TallTed, no, next meeting is Nov 29
TallTed, sorry Nov 30
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2021 22:44:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:24 UTC